Supression Effect

[Shanesan]

I appears that some people don't understand how visual cues work.

If there was no screen jump in CounterStrike 1.6 for recoil, would the game be as good?

If All Points Bulletin went with a health bar instead of visual damage effects, would the game be as okay?

If you don't have a form of suppressed cue, would you have a higher chance of poking your head out for a few pot shots and cowering again? Of course you would. This negates the point of suppressive fire, unless they reduce the TTK to about 2 or 3 bullets where you actually WOULD be suppressed.

If bullets aren't practically insta-kill, there needs to be visual cues instead, else suppression is negated and useless in a general sense.

[RNFB]

Originally Posted by Shanesan

there needs to be visual cues instead.

Seeing and hearing the bullets was plenty of cue. You shouldn't need the screen to blur as well, it's just annoying and serves no actual purpose.

[Skitrel]

People need to stop saying soldiers this soldiers that as if they fucking know what being a soldier is like.

Pet peeve: People speaking as though they're an authority on topics they have absolutely zero experience in.

Go ask the players playing Project Reality and Arma, you'll find half of them are military guys, get their opinion on what being shot at is like and go ask them if you stick your head around a corner while you're being shot at, they'll tell you you're an idiot and would get your face blown off. Speaking from having plenty of military friends as well as having trained (though not finished due to injury) myself, so actual combat comes from friends' experiences, not my own.

Suppression is in place in games not because a soldier's vision gets blurry when he's being shot at but because of the psychological effect taking fire has. You hunker down and don't do shit if you know what's good for you. Your adrenaline spikes, your mind races, you sweat profusely and you get out of breath doing next to nothing. You are literally inches away from death with every bullet that flies past. Those are 5.56mm bullets flying past you, if one of those hits you it's not going to make a nice neat hole like in the movies, it's going to tear you apart, you're going to lose muscle tissue surrounding the impact, it's going to break any bone it hits, it's going to shred an exit hole 5x the size of the entrance hole. If it hits you in the arm you can guarantee you're not getting use of that arm again, if it hits your stomach you might live, if it hits your chest you're dead as fuck. War is brutal, bloody and terrifying.

Do not for an instant believe that someone is stupid enough to try and return fire on enemies that have a bead on you, if they're shooting at where you are and you're behind cover there is absolutely nothing that can be done, give them a target and they will shoot it before you can work out where their shots are even coming from.

War is about manoeuvres. If a squad is pinned down someone else needs to shoot the guy pinning them down or that squad needs to move elsewhere in order to out manoeuvre the enemy. It is all about getting a position that beads on the enemy before they have a bead on you.

Shit, what people here are talking about might have been feasible in world war 2 when weaponry was inaccurate as hell and engagements were all incredibly close range but today? Not a chance.

Too many damn video games.

[BNuts]

Originally Posted by Skitrel

People need to stop saying soldiers this soldiers that as if they fucking know what being a soldier is like.

Pet peeve: People speaking as though they're an authority on topics they have absolutely zero experience in.

Go ask the players playing Project Reality and Arma, you'll find half of them are military guys, get their opinion on what being shot at is like and go ask them if you stick your head around a corner while you're being shot at, they'll tell you you're an idiot and would get your face blown off. Speaking from having plenty of military friends as well as having trained (though not finished due to injury) myself, so actual combat comes from friends' experiences, not my own.

....


Too many damn video games.

F'N - A

But PS2 aint supposta reflect today's standards of war.
and its 5.56 (only NATO countrys use that, everyone else uses 7.62)
love your post anyways.

[Conq]

People seem to be under the impression that suppression is there (in BF3) to warn you. I don't get that, I just see it as a bit of realism. If heavy rounds are bouncing off the wall neck to your head, your character should be experiencing it in some way.

If I know someone is hiding behind a tree in BF3, I don't unload my LMG at it just to scare them. It's because I know what it does to their screen and I want them to have an unsteady aim when they pop out.

[Serotriptomine]

What I would be totally against is a "this is where I'm being shot from" visual indicator.
Either you blur vision, or you give a different sound.

[RNFB]

Originally Posted by Conq

People seem to be under the impression that suppression is there (in BF3) to warn you. I don't get that, I just see it as a bit of realism. If heavy rounds are bouncing off the wall neck to your head, your character should be experiencing it in some way.

If I know someone is hiding behind a tree in BF3, I don't unload my LMG at it just to scare them. It's because I know what it does to their screen and I want them to have an unsteady aim when they pop out.

Psychological effects should be felt by the player, not the character. If bullets are flying by me, I should be the one reacting, not my character.

If I'm running somewhere and all of a sudden there are three TR guys shooting at me, I am going to be panicking and looking for cover. There is no need to artificially create this feeling on my screen, it's just annoying.

[Conq]

Originally Posted by RNFB

Psychological effects should be felt by the player, not the character. If bullets are flying by me, I should be the one reacting, not my character.

Haha, what wonderful logic. In BF3, when an enemy shines a light in my face, my character shouldn't be blinded. It should be up to me as the player to determine my reaction?

Also, we aren't talking about psychological effects here. When a series a high caliber rounds impact around your head, you are going to be feeling physical reverberations and deafening sound. The suppression effect simulates the disorientation to add realism and reward near hits.

[NewSith]

First - we're talking about visual effects here, for those who didn't play BF3. Suppression in Battlefield 3 reduces your accuracy (as a stat, not because of blurred vision) to shit. For instance you can't hit a guy standing 5 meters infront of you even is semi-auto while suppressed. This turns the game into - who suppresses first - wins by default game. Cover doesn't even need to be involved.

Second, dear lazymen, this:

Originally Posted by NewSith

Thank for sharing. I totally didn't know that. But for some reason I was still able to hit target when was shot at.

SIDENOTE: HELL, even more - how can you be scared of dying in the world where you're immortal?

[Neksar]

There's still psychological trauma associated with death. At least, the fluff from when they explained how the gates caused immortality says so.

[Skitrel]

Originally Posted by BNuts

F'N - A

But PS2 aint supposta reflect today's standards of war.
and its 5.56 (only NATO countrys use that, everyone else uses 7.62)
love your post anyways.

Fixed. Thanks for pointing that out, bit of a brain fart I reckon. In my defence it was 5.17am when I posted that so I wasn't entirely awake.

[Tehroth]

Originally Posted by Coreldan

Regarding what Eyeklops said, I think overall speaking weapons could/should have different suppression levels, but I guess that also comes with the RoF/longevity of firing. Like, an LMG is naturally gonna suppress you more cos it just keeps firing and firing at you.

I personally don't really mind the punishment-model either, mainly cos it's the only thing that really allows for true suppressive fire. The guy almost getting shot won't be able to just drop my friend running in the open cos I'm literally suppressing him and disturbing his aim. With a light suppression he can still take the perfect shot if he is fast enough. A game doesnt have a true fear of death, which is why such punishments were originally made anyways

The BF3/RO2 approach does have the appeal to me that it truely makes you take cover when the bullets start flying by cos you cant see much, you cant really aim, so if you want to live to fight it another time you just have to eat the dirt. If it's just a light suppression indicating taht bullets are whizzing near, theres nothing really stopping you from finishing what you started.

I agree most fps lack the feel that your death is a very serious matter and you shouldn't be running to bullets because you can manage to shoot a headshot at someone through a hail of bullets. I don't like that unrealistic movie like feel most fps adapt. If you're being shot at modern day, WW2 or futuristic settings you aren't going to press your luck like that. The higher damage the weapon he bigger suppression effect it should have.

I know everyone is immortal and have shields, but still...

Also the guy complaining about suppression in battlefield3 is over exaggerating immensely. If you are good you still can kill the guy. Learn to aim in the first place and it won't be so bad. I usually pop behind cover and wait until the bullets stop and pop up and shoot. I don't try to western movie style someone at 20 paces away. Get suppressed? Find cover...realism plain and simple. -From a positive kdr bf3 player(non support class)

[Skitrel]

Originally Posted by NewSith

First - we're not talking about visual effects here, for those who didn't play BF3. Suppression in Battlefield 3 reduces your accuracy (as a stat, not because of blurred vision) to shit. For instance you can't hit a guy standing 5 meters infront of you even is semi-auto while suppressed. This turns the game into - who suppresses first - wins by default game. Cover doesn't even need to be involved.

Second, dear lazymen, this:

Yes we are talking about visual effects. Keep up with the conversation, it moved to ONLY visual effects after Higby chimed in on the first page explaining there would be no accuracy hit.

You're arguing with nobody, about absolutely nothing.

[Vancha]

I just realized this entire thread is an example of rampant bad game design. People have become incredulous at a game being able to evoke instinctual reactions.

If a game has to give a visual representation of what your character's feeling because you aren't, then it's already failed. It's like having emotional cue cards in a movie. "Feel sad here", "this is a happy moment", "this person's in danger, feel anxious!".

Originally Posted by NewSith

SIDENOTE: HELL, even more - how can you be scared of dying in the world where you're immortal?

How can anyone be scared of anything in Amnesia? Penumbra? Dead Space? I haven't played any of these, but I know of them because they're infamous for scaring people. Granted, PS2 isn't a horror game, they just happen to be the best examples of games evoking emotional/instinctual responses.

This is the importance of immersion. This is why people fight for the inclusion of boarding animations and holstered weapons. It's subtle psychological things that help suck you into a world, whether it's movies, books or games. If you're detached and have no emotional investment, then everything is meaningless.

As always, Extra Credits manages to explain what I'm trying so hard to...

http://penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/the-skinner-box

Games are somewhat fortunate in that there's two ways to enjoy them. There's the engagement aspect (narrative, story, emotional investment etc.) and then the reward systems like the skinner box. Levelling up, unlocking things, gaining achievements...

I'm not saying that the latter shouldn't be there. It's a good thing, but if you want people to be afraid of dying and averse to exposing themselves to a wall of bullets, it's the former that needs to be improved upon. You need to trigger people's sense of self-preservation, which can't be done if immersion is non-existent.

[StumpyTheOzzie]

In a world where death is merely an inconvenience, I will not be suppressed.